The Square Circle IS a Classic!

[Bill Duncan]

Dustin,
I wasn't so much concerned with the nebulous distinction of "good" magic vs. "bad" magic, as I was with audience expectations.

I suspect that the things some of us would consider odd-looking magic devices are unquestioned by lay audiences because that is what they have come to expect from magicians, not because they're "OK."

Personally, I like my props to have some semblance of normalcy, but one of my favorite magicians (a guy named Payne), does prop magic using all manner of odd looking crap. I'd rather watch him than most of the magicians I've seen, irrespective of what they were "magishing" with.

[erdnasephile]

While I concur with Dustin that "good" magic can be done with odd props, I think the decision to use them is really a theatrical one.

As Stan Allen and Mike Caveney have put it in the past: "Do I want the props to get the credit for the magic?"

That's the inherent difficulty with out of the ordinary props--since the audience sees them as a magic device (as per Bill Duncan), while they might accept it as being consistent with what a magician might use, it will never carry the advantage of the implied innocence of ungaffed ordinary objects or fekes.

One can certainly overcome this hurdle via presentation and handling, but the savvy performer just needs to be aware of the poential shortcomings and compensate appropriately. (similar to what we were talking about in the Room Service thread).

The sad thing is that some magicians never consciously make the choice at all.

PS: The OP posted that JIS is not a fan of prop magic--this generalization doesn't really hold--for example, he gave a rather positive review to some of Robert Parrish's excellent work with props. Rather, JIS's writings indicate he is a fan of good magic--the converse is also true :)

[Glenn Bishop]

As Stan Allen and Mike Caveney have put it in the past: "Do I want the props to get the credit for the magic?"

I remember one magician told me at one time long ago. When a magician does a magic trick with a clever prop - the audience may think the prop is clever and not the performer.

Although I do understand that point of view I think that there are several skill sets that can be involved in a magic show.

Skill in manipulation.
Skill in presenting manipulation in front of an audience.
Skill in presenting magic in an entertaining way.

In my opinion there are more skill sets like knowing what to do and what not to do when performing on a stage - TV - or a venue.

I remember a very good card man performing a card trick on a TV show. He did the top change and host did not see it - but the camera caught it. I am not sure if this was the right kind of trick to do on TV just because of the angles of working a live TV show and there are camera angles involved.

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

[Richard Kaufman]

The props only get the credit if your presentation is poor.

[mrgoat]

The props only get the credit if your presentation is poor.

Interesting thought.

What about repetition? Recently, aforemetioned ladyfriend has seen 3 performances of tossed out deck. She asked me after the second what was "funny about the cards" and then on the third viewing guessed how it worked.

I am not sure however entertaining you are (and the VERY entertaining John Archer was the third performance she saw), makes a difference if you keep seeing the same tricks done.

So, is there also an argument against using the most commonly used props? Or is this an unusual situation that only happened because she has the misfortune of being my ladyfriend?

[John Archer]

Sounds to me like she had nearly worked it out after the second performance.... I refuse to take the blame. ;-)

J

[Jonathan Townsend]

? "and even more amazing is how each time they all looked at the ace of diamonds".

[Glenn Bishop]

I use A svengali deck to force the card for the card duck and use the same card every time. And because I am entertaining the whole audience I dont much care if one or two people notice that it is the same card and that I might be using a trick deck.

If an audience member has a problem with the same card coming up - after the show I would just classic force the same card on them a few times and then let them look at the deck.

And it is funny how I also place the same empty tube into a black art box just before I produce a load of silks in a stage show. In a stage show performing situation I dont think that it matters much if the same card is selected or the same props are used - like the empty tube in the black art box trick - known as the square circle.

But that is just my opinion.

[mrgoat]

Sounds to me like she had nearly worked it out after the second performance.... I refuse to take the blame. ;-)

J

Mr Archer, it wasn't your fault at all. And your performance of it was very entertaining. But after seeing two lack-lustre performers do it...she worked it out.

[John Archer]

Just kidding...

[Master Payne]

The props only get the credit if your presentation is poor.

Which more or less is the point of my Lecture Notes\Book which started this whole thread (sort of)

As long as you can justify the use of the prop -- give it some sort of meaning or have a reason to employ such a device. Then the audience will be far more accepting of its use and the prop can become secondary to the performer.

If however, you simply pull a string of handkerchiefs out of a garishly stenciled and oddly constructed box with no reason or motivation then the audience will more than likely give the box credit for the effect. The magician therefore becomes secondary to his props.

Thus, a good presentation has a reason to use the particular prop it needs. A bad presentation simply uses the prop because it can.

[Jonathan Townsend]

But Payne if they aren't going to do a Billy Idol tribute act with "Dancing With My Props" - what then - years of theater? And just what sort of magicshop customers would they be while busy learning what a script is, how to move, how to listen to audiences, getting torn apart by directors... hmmm?

IMHO so much better to can the hams with delusions of history and relevance in ways audiences can see them coming a mile away and sit there knowing there's nothing to worry about.

[Doc]

My old daddy once told me an easy way to square a circle. :D

[Pete McCabe]

It's hard to fathom how many smart people in this thread are talking about "props" as though they are all the same.

If Tom Burgoon brings out a bag and calls it a bag, the audience is certainly familiar with a bag. If you do a trick with a rope, everyone knows what rope is. Everybody knows what cups are, and balls. I have presented the Hot Rod as a birthday gemstone sampler, such as a jewelry store might have. This went over welleven though I'm not aware of any such device in the real world, it seems to make sense.

I'm not sure what people will think a square circle is. I do know that if you use a square circle and don't in some way communicate to the audience what it is, they will not have any idea other than "magic prop." If that's what you want, fine. But if that's what you're getting because you haven't bothered to consider the question, that's pretty weak.

The idea that props don't matter is extremely silly. Everything matters. The magician matters more than the props, but the props absolutely matter.

[Jonathan Townsend]

It's hard to fathom how many smart people in this thread are talking about "props" as though they are all the same. ...

Did anyone make such a claim? Most of the criticism came about incongruent items which attracted attention to themselves in ways that made them also seem the explanations for the magical effects presented.

[P.T.Widdle]

With all due respect, I'm not sure props that are unidentifiable by laymen are a bad thing. I was heartened by comments made by Angelo Carbone in his current Genii interview. He actually praised "cool magic props" (as David Regal called them) for the de-emphasis on the magician. They just sit there doing their magical thing and amaze the audience (paraphrasing).
He also said that magicians are supposed to do things out of the ordinary, so why always use ordinary objects? (again, paraphrasing)

Great interview, by the way.

[Jonathan Townsend]

PT, same issue IMHO - not about how strange the stuff looks but more about whether the props detract from the magic by offering a plausible explanation - or detract from the performer by being incongruent in ways that are not incorporated as themes in the act or character.

For example: As clever as the Tenyo toys look, a curious person with a pen knife is wont to discover just what the clever mechanism is.

Another example: A youngster presenting the temple screen as a gift from an ancient Chinese monk he met during his time serving in the great war while on secret missions to Mongolia... might work for comedy but how many of us can pull off characters that the audience can laugh at yet still make the magic work?

[P.T.Widdle]

Jonathan, let's assume for the same of discussion that the Tenyo trick is performed and the spectator is not allowed to go at it with a knife.

Must a performance of a trick be congruent with a theme or character? Carbone's point (I believe) is that sometimes certain tricks can just exist and exude mystery with minimal input from the magician in regards to "performance." Some may say the effect will suffer, but that's a matter of opinion. I remember Doug Henning performing Origami on Carson, and he gave the trick no context or theme - he just did it.
This is not to say that this is the best way to perform an effect, but it I think it's a viable approach for certain tricks in certain situations.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I'm just suggesting that when the mystery is so clearly focused on the prop one runs the risk of having the performance seen as a mechanical puzzle rather than getting that magic/astonishment type feeling.

*also suggested that the tenyo items come with non-gaffed dupes for show/tell :)

By way of contrast, consider Harbin's Zig-zag item. It's a sort of impressionist phonebooth in itself however the performance is all about the person inside the box. The volunteer outside the box is dealing with knowing that a real tummy and hand are out there zagged while a real head, hand and foot remained in place with not so much as a zig or sign of smoke and mirrors. The prop illustrates yet does not reveal the mystery. :)

[P.T.Widdle]

I'm just suggesting that when the mystery is so clearly focused on the prop one runs the risk of having the performance seen as a mechanical puzzle rather than getting that magic/astonishment type feeling.

This seems to be the prevailing opinion, and I absolutely understand it, but I don't think prop-focused magic (for lack of a better term) is the only way to risk loosing that "magic/astonishment" feeling. Subjecting a good trick to a bad performance or a poorly chosen theme can also ruin it. Conversely, I believe a prop focused effect (like the Zig-Zag), without a theme (or story) imposed upon it or a "character" performing it, absolutely has the potential to achieve that astonishment feeling.

[Angelo Carbone]

I thought I would just throw in my tuppence...

What if you look at it from a different point of view... where you NEED a prop because it is the only way of achieving a specific effect. Eg: I created a Zig Zag Glass of Milk trick and I NEED the box to achieve the method and create the effect of zig zagging the glass of milk. There is no way I could achieve the same effect without the box - just by do it visibly with the glass sitting there on the table. I can't do REAL magic :) I NEED the prop. There is a lot of magic out there where the prop is essential to the method/effect such as the Chinese Sticks, Linking Rings and Wrist Chopper etc. These props are out of the ordinary but does that mean then we should lose out on these type of effects because they are not ordinary or look like 'props'? Magic would be so boring if we just used ordianry objects all the time. We are ALLOWED to use props. We can get away with it. We are magicians after all and I do believe it is expected of us (sometimes) from the audience to see magic props in our magic.

Incidentally, I performed my Zig Zag Milk trick at the recent Blackpool convention for a large group of hotel staff. After the trick, two ladies grabbed the glass and started tugging at it to see if it came apart and asked how did I do it? They did not grab the box (the prop) or say "My that is a clever box you have there!" The trick was about the glass - not the box. Props are a means for creating an effect. If the effect is strong enough, it becomes primary and the prop becomes secondary.

I don't think it is bad if an audience say or even just think "how did he do it?" That is our job. Not just to entertain but to do things that are not possible or unexplainable. It is human nature for our audience to wonder. Just because they don't say it doesn't mean they are not thinking it and it also doesn't mean your magic is bad if they do say it. Saying so is often just another way of expressing their astonishment and implying they were fooled. Job done then.

Regarding the Square Circle effect... sure you can produce silks from nothing and apparently empty hands but what if you need to produce bigger items and more items? To do that without a prop would not be efficient or practical so in certain cases props are essential.

My understanding of a classic effect is a trick which has been performed many many times and still plays well now as it did many many years ago. In that sense, a Square Circle Production Box is a classic.

Angelo

Oh and FYI, I designed a different type of Square Circle for Fantasma Magic which does not use the black art principle. Not sure if they still sell it though.

[Glenn Godsey]

A deck of Bicycle cards is an old Victorian object with 19th century ornaments on the backs.

So are Morgan dollars.

I, personally, prefer those traditions in magic entertainment over "contemporary designs" such as Mikame boxes.

Best regards,
Glenn Godsey

[P.T.Widdle]

I see that on the back cover of the Oct. 2010 Genii is an ad for "Invisible Paint" by Creative Magic.

It is another "real world" themed-based Square Circle effect, like the "Recycler." I don't have a problem with tricks getting the "real-world" theme treatment, per se. It is one way to go with an effect. But what I do take issue with is when the "real world" themed version is made to seem superior to a no theme, or a non "real-world" themed effect. The "Invisible Paint" ad says, "Finally, pulling colors out of a "tube" makes sense!" As if magical moments are intrinsically dependent upon "real-world" identifications. They are not, and they are not better magical moments (see Carbone's previous post). I suppose the "makes sense!" advertising copy is supposed to justify the outlandish $540 price tag (along with the clever inclusion of the Phantom Tube principle).

[Gordon Meyer]

Well, this is from a company that sells illusions made from automobile windshield sunshade material. There's no accounting for taste.

[Bill Palmer]

The Zig-Zag is really a bad choice for this particular thread, I think. Shortly after the Harbin book went into print, I saw the trick done well by someone who knew what he was doing. I wasn't even involved in doing any kind of illusion work at the time, and the prop SCREAMED the method to me.

Yet it fooled my father, who had been a charter member of Ring 39.

Go figure.

Maybe the lesson in this is that sometimes the method is in the eye of the beholder.

[Bill Palmer]

Regarding the Square Circle and/or its deceptiveness and its appropriateness, consider this:

The first application of this particular trick was by Louis Histed, in the form of a sentry box. That was appropriate for his style of show. It probably fooled a lot of people.

The ABC Chewing Gum Recombobulator by Chance Wolf is an appropriately themed kid show prop.

But there are contexts where it doesn't work at all. If the prop isn't well designed and if it clashes with the surroundings, it's hard to call it a classic.

I worked for a now defunct magic company that produced a really beautiful Square Circle. The bad angle was hidden. The box was Honduran Mahogany. The gaff was invisible from a foot away. We made 24 of them. It didn't look as much like a magic prop as the MAK Magic "thing" with the garish paint job does.

There are versions that are "classic" and there are versions that are crap.

Bear in mind, as you peruse your copy of Modern Magic and the volumes that followed it, that many of these old, funny-looking prop boxes were based upon things that were common in Hoffmann's day, such as tea caddies (which were locked so the servants couldn't pinch the tea) and grandfather clocks. I'm sure that few people had satyr heads on stands in their parlors, so I don't know if the Satyr head with the cards would be considered a classic or simply a gaudy, highly collectible automaton.

If we look at a show put on by someone who doesn't understand how things need to fit together on stage or in the parlor, and we see a bunch of MAK Magic props or other similar items, painted with the Buddha, Chinese admonitions not to smoke, gaudy boxes painted with Sikhs and Swamis, and badly stenciled dragons, then we are not witnessing the classics. We are witnessing a bad parody on them.

On the other hand, if we watch a sleight of hand "expert" performing on a cable show do the classic pass, and we can see all of the work, even on a small screen television, are we witnessing a classic then?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Regarding the Square Circle and/or its deceptiveness and its appropriateness, consider this:

.... If the prop ...clashes with the surroundings, it's hard to call it a classic....

I don't agree with this truncated statement. What was truncated was a claim about design - which is IMHO too vague a term to use without some further context.

IMHO the square circle black art/cutout container design and basic handling is sensible, versatile and proven its utility over the decades. As to whether a particular prop decor/implementation will serve is IMHO a production design issue rather one of design as regards method/principle/engineering type design.

[Glenn Bishop]

It didn't look as much like a magic prop as the MAK Magic "thing" with the garish paint job does.

If we look at a show put on by someone who doesn't understand how things need to fit together on stage or in the parlor, and we see a bunch of MAK Magic props or other similar items, painted with the Buddha, Chinese admonitions not to smoke, gaudy boxes painted with Sikhs and Swamis, and badly stenciled dragons, then we are not witnessing the classics. We are witnessing a bad parody on them.

I like Buddha, Chinese lettering, gaudy boxes painted with Sikhs and Swamis, and stenciled dragons, and I would not call them bad.

And I have used props like this for years. And if I might add the only people that have told me that they did not like my props ARE MAGICIANS!

Just a few thoughts and opinion.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Folks,

The term production design covers the items used to convey what we might think of "theme" by way of props, music, costume, choice of language...

Jon

PS after a Chinese friend explained what certain cups are in the household and that there's some discomfort about inverted cups, burning money... I slowed down with facile use of imported novelty design items until I knew enough about them to want to have coins appear on a red ribbon, use a red decorated envelope to find a card ... and such. :)

[Duncan William]

Has anyone seen the newer version of this - the recycler?